"From February 1943, no returns of inmates were received: the monthly reports were thereafter sent out by courier."

I think this sentence is highly misleading. First, the source he is referring to only states that no returns of inmates have been received. It does NOT say, they have been "sent out by courier". This is simply an assumption made by Terry. Second, given that Terry is exclusively dealing with the returns from Auschwitz, the reader gets the impression that ONLY Auschwitz stopped sending returns - as if Auschwitz was trying to hide something. But, if I am not mistaken, Bletchley Park didn't receive ANY returns whatsoever as of February 1943 - be it from Auschwitz or Dachau or Buchenwald. Isn't that correct?

"I think Kollerstrom is wrong to have said: "'the codes could not be cracked anymore."

True, "the Germans ceased to send them by wireless" is a totally different story to "the codes could not be cracked anymore".

In any case, it is good to know that "the Germans ceased to send them by wireless" as I was wondering why there are no more returns after January 1943. First I thought, Bletchley Park simply lost all interest in the returns since Victor Cavendish-Bentinck could not find any evidence in support of the Polish and Jewish atrocity claims.

"I think Kollerstrom is wrong to have said: "'the codes could not be cracked anymore."

True, "the Germans ceased to send them by wireless" is a totally different story to "the codes could not be cracked anymore".

In any case, it is good to know that "the Germans ceased to send them by wireless" as I was wondering why there are no more returns after January 1943. First I thought, Bletchley Park simply lost all interest in the returns since Victor Cavendish-Bentinck could not find any evidence in support of the Polish and Jewish atrocity claims.

Here he refers to the GPCC decodes in general and not specifically to the underlying HORHUG decodes from which the monthly inmate tables were compiled.

Tyas writes on p. 222:

Apart from decoding messages, Bletchley Park intelligence personnel also wrote monthly summaries based on information from the daily decodes. These summaries are especially significant for the months January to September 1942, a period for which the daily decodes are not available. [16]

[16] Two volumes from series HW16 with daily decodes covering the period January to October 1942 are noted as "Missing at transfer" and were not handed over to the NA in May 1997; in May 2003 they are still "missing", letter 13 May 2003 GCHQ to the author stating "At the time German Police communications were the lowest of cover priorities at BP [Bletchley Park] so there would be no qualms about destroying files from which the most important items had been extracted - possibly for reasons as mundane as lack of storage space." Only the monthly summaries of the daily decodes, for January - October 1942 are available in NA, HW 16/65.

So, if Tyas' assertion is true, then it may be productive to persue the British decodes of the German Order Police in the Soviet archives!

Breitman, Official Secrets, Epilogue, pp. 241 - 243

Britain had worked out a trade of German police decodes with the Soviet Union in late 1941 or early 1942.

...

In late June 1941, the British sent a military mission to Moscow headed by Noel Mason Macfarlane, and the Soviets sent a corresponding team to London. One task of each mission was to work out exchanges of intelligence.

...

Although historians indicate that a trade of low-grade intelligence began in August 1941, the archival sources suggest that the police decodes were not included until early 1942. In March 1942, a Colonel Nicholls in the War Office ( MI 8 ) instructed Major Edward Crankshaw of the Military Mission to turn over at once and unconditionally all German police decodes and literature about police cyphers to the Soviets.

...

The British were willing to send to Russia every Eastern front police key within twenty-four hours after the Germans had ceased to use them, and the British expected in return all messages intercepted (but not deciphered) by the Soviets.

...

The British, however, gave the Soviets the original transcripts of their German police decodes.

The Soviets complained that the British were holding back on them. In September 1942, Crankshaw suggested that he give the Russians the whole set of German police decodes from July 1941 onward - the period in which there was detailed coverage of activities in the Soviet territories. It appears that he did so, but collaboration broke down in October 1942 anyway. In other words, the British told the Soviets much more about the mass executions of Jews and others in the Soviet territories than they told the Americans, and they revealed more to the Soviets about British decoding of German police traffic than they gave to the Americans until 1944.

Thank you very much for making me aware of David Bankier's "Secret Intelligence and the Holocaust". Does it contain any new arguments that go beyond the "Terry axiom" that "the majority of deportees arriving at Auschwitz were gassed on arrival and never registered in the camp; therefore, they did not show up in the prisoner returns"?

It appears to me that the "Terry axiom" is an ad hoc hypothesis, simply designed to save the "official" number of victims at Auschwitz. Without a document explicitly stating NOT to report any deaths of "unregistered deportees", the Terry axiom has no basis whatsoever.

Considering the thousands of tons of German/Nazi documents seized by the allies following WWII, has a thorough, scholarly and meaningful study ever really been performed? Surely, through a sensible assessment of the documents and records surrounding the concentration camps, incriminating and exculpatory evidence (to the key issue of mass-gassings), is to be found. Also, considering the Zionist forces that were in control of these records, the Nuremberg tribunals, propaganda and information management, is it reasonable to believe that the entirety of the immense documentary evidence has been made available for investigation -- even to this day? Sensible investigations are not welcomed by the investigated. They have all to lose. Certainly they will object and will attempt to control and slant the evidence.If a person or group falls under the scrutiny of the authorities or are being investigated, they would naturally circle the wagons in defense.Immense effort has been applied to engrave the holocaust in stone -- critical aspects not to be doubted or questioned. Doing so makes one a racist and Jew hater -- it is claimed. But what of the dozens of once iron-clad holocaust claims that have been disproven and dropped from the narrative? Are the litany of truth seekers, researchers and investigators that have exposed flaw after flaw in the holocaust story anti-Semitic? Are they "Jew haters"?

In the paper "The Successful Endeavour to Reduce Camp Mortality"*, it is claimed that the data from the Bletchley Park Decrypts are compatible with the data from the Death Books of Auschwitz. I wished this was the case. It seems, however, as if the two sets of data are not quite as compatible as claimed.

According to the Death Books of Auschwitz, there were 811 deaths in August 1943. In a table linked to the above mentioned paper, however, there were 2.380 deaths in August 1943 (1.442 men and 983 women).

"Considering the thousands of tons of German/Nazi documents seized by the allies following WWII, has a thorough, scholarly and meaningful study ever really been performed?"

You can be absolutely certain that the people who profit from the Hoax have studied every document, looking for incriminating evidence, and they have found none.

You can also be certain that they have found tons of exculpatory evidence, and it is either being kept secret, or it has been destroyed.

Maybe, just maybe, they believe what they are telling you about the 'holocaust', but maybe, just maybe, their contempt for your intelligence and your character is beyond anything you could ever have imagined. -- Bradley Smith

Dr. Edgar Dahl wrote:In the paper "The Successful Endeavour to Reduce Camp Mortality"*, it is claimed that the data from the Bletchley Park Decrypts are compatible with the data from the Death Books of Auschwitz. I wished this was the case. It seems, however, as if the two sets of data are not quite as compatible as claimed.

According to the Death Books of Auschwitz, there were 811 deaths in August 1943. In a table linked to the above mentioned paper, however, there were 2.380 deaths in August 1943 (1.442 men and 983 women).

In the terrible month of August 1942, thirty percent of the Auschwitz male camp population died. A year later, that catastrophic level had been successfully reduced to only one-tenth as much: so that a mere 3% of the camp died in August 1943. It will here be argued that that initial mortality was caused by typhus hitting the camp – to a degree far worse than any other German labour-camp – and that the subsequent drop was due to a successful implementation of hygiene technology and so-called ‘special treatment’ protocols.

The previous article mentioned above, as being in accord with the Death Books is titled "Deaths at Auschwitz, 1942"

So, the claim is being made that the decrypts data is broadly compatible with the death books data for 1942.

You are quoting a figure for August 1943, a month for which no HORHUG returns exist and for which the claim isn't being made.

So, for the astute reader, it should appear quite obvious that NK is not discussing any concordance between "Death Books" data and HORHUG data, for the month upon which your question is based, August 1943, because, very simply, there is no HORHUG data for August 1943.

Also, if you read the introduction article Bletchley Park Concentration Camp Decodes, the interpretation of the HORHUG column, "Departures by any means", is explained as comprising "exactly what its says on the tin", i.e: mortality, transfers, releases etc.

So, this is yet another reason why it is difficult to reconcile the HORHUG data with other sources for mortality.

As for the difference between the August 1943 Auschwitz death books total of 811 vs 2,380 in the Nuremberg doc 1469-PS, I cannot help.

Something, somewhere is seriously wrong.

Maybe you could summon up the ghosts of Jenny Spritzer, or Lore Shelley.

I'm sure Ms Spritzer & Shelley would tell you about the alleged order to cease issuing death certificates for Jews after February 1943, one of Nick Terry's other axioms to justify the paucity of extant death certificates in August 1943.

But I suspect you already know that don't you ?

Be sure not to miss the incredibly credible, Jenny Spritzer's, ghostly tales of the flames leaping out of the Auschwitz chimneys and ze gas coming from the shower heads ...

Alternatively, you could delve down the back of a filing cabinet and find an hitherto, long lost document, that shows how the Soviets implemented a fiendish plan to artifically increase the number of death certificates issued to Catholics, just to confuse us all.

Then have someone write a book about it so that it becomes an unassailable Holofact !

Tip: I'd leave out the chimney flames and the shower head gas stuff though, it won't do your claims much good ...

.

Last edited by Horhug on Wed May 20, 2015 4:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Right, I should not have challenged the claim that the Auschwitz Returns decrypted at Bletchley Park are compatible with the Death Books of Auschwitz by referring to a Nuremberg document.

Still, I'm glad you see the point I was trying to make.

It is of course much easier to present the Auschwitz Returns as compatible with the Death Books since "returns" include transferred prisoners. Thus, it could always be claimed that the Bletchley Park Returns MUST have included a particular number of transferred prisoners.

Anyway, all I am saying is that it is a pity that the available data do not really add up. In this particular case: the number of deaths given in the Death Books and the number of deaths given in a Nuremberg document.